#democracy on trial

[filosofablogger]

Nothing But A Piece Of Paper

There was a time when I could not have imagined what the U.S. has become today.  Our society accepts so many things that were once deemed ‘unacceptable’.  Where does this path we’re on lead us?  Can we find the key to a better path, to change course before we reach the edge of the cliff?  I don’t know the answer … nobody does.  But Robert Reich’s newsletter today gives us some food for thought…

[beauty-funny-trippy]

[marktaylor-canfield]

Robert DeNiro: Trump Is A Wannabe Dictator - His Election Would Result I...

[rednblacksalamander]

[jonostroveart]

Bait. What else could he be doing? He’s not fishing for compliments.

[commonsensecommentary]

“I have no idea who will win the 2024 election, but I can guarantee that, as of this moment, the Democrats have, due to their blindness regarding the side effects of their legal bludgeoning of Donald Trump, turned him into a more formidable candidate by turning him into a martyr in the eyes of many, one who deserves both their sympathy and support.”

(from my blog archive)

Stay tuned, America….

[mallory-likes-whales]

Okay, I get that Trump is really really bad, and that we all want him gone, but if he's assassinated there will probably be at best mass violence and at worst an actual civil war. You do realize that, right? A lot of people will die.

[thepowerisyouth]

List of people that I believe should be held accountable for Global Crimes Against Humanity of varying degrees of accountable justice when this is all over:

-Every person can be tracked (satellites & internet yall. It does things) having committed verifiable "war crimes" under the disguise of "war", (zionist facist genocide almost every time). Literal crimes against human nature committed all over the world.

Gaza is a huge focus right now for a good reason. Literal holocaust 2.0 and my country says fuck off I love supporting facism. All of these people involved directly on the ground must be highest up in the priority list for accountability. Immediately placed in maximum security prison awaiting a worldwide broadcast trial. It will take time to get through all the fuckfaces that murder kids but it MUST be all of them this time

-Every board member of every single "major" corporation in the world which has supported this genocide & not publicly stood up to facism. They are also high priority as they actually own the government more than vice versa

-Every registered lobbyist who has bribed for a bill which has been used to systematically tortue one of the most diverse, and ancient, group of humans in the world into extinction

-Every politician at EVERY level of government who has not stood up to the bully that is our facist trumpole Amurica and publicly called for immediate, and permanent, de-weaponization of israel. The remaining discussions obviously are going to be hard, but god damn the fucking violence is endless and they are supporting it by not speaking out

THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. READ THE CONSTITUTION, KNOW YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS TO STAND UP FOR WHAT IS HUMANE AND GOOD

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"WHY CONVICTS WEEP." Ottawa Journal. July 4, 1933. Page 6. ---- SAM BEHAN, convict, already serving "life and seven years" in Kingston Penitentiary, wept when a jury declared him not guilty of rioting at that institution. Disposition of his case is another proof of the fairness and impartial judgment which are the basis of the Canadian judicial system.

BEHAN in his charge to the jury delivered an impassioned oration, denouncing Canadian penitentiaries and holding up Sing Sing as an example of what prisons should be. "Humane treatment!" he said, ironically.

"Walk into Sing Sing prison any time and you'll hardly know you are in a penitentiary. You see men smoking and talking; they have all they want except their liberty. Only a couple of reports a month are made against men, and they must be serious. Inmates themselves discipline the place, and a new man coming in is warned by the convicts not to do anything to cause them to lose their privileges or it will be just too bad for him."

This sounds like the law-breaker's conception of the ideal prison. BEHAN might have added that the guests at Sing Sing enjoy sports, amateur theatricals, radio entertainments, to such an extent that, as he says, the place isn't like a penitentiary at all. The Canadian idea of a prison, and we think the sounder one, is of a place where crime is punished; where discipline, treatment fair but firm, impress the convict with the folly of his ways and convince him of the wisdom of changing them if he desires to stay outside the walls.

No doubt Canadian convicts are bitter as they consider the pleasant days of the fellows In Sing Sing, where a prisoner hardly knows he is being punished, with their own circumstances under the rules and conditions Canada makes for those who break her laws. One might suggest, perhaps, that men released in due course from the Canadian penitentiaries, if they feel they must continue their criminal professions, transfer their activities to New York State so that, if they are unlucky, Sing Sing and not Kingston will extend its hospitality.

[william-r-melich]

If Nefarious Breach, You Must Impeach - 04/26/2024

Presidential immunity is something that I haven't previously given much thought to, probably because it's something that hasn't surfaced much as an issue until recently. Yesterday at Trump's hearing on presidential immunity, US Supreme court justice Samuel Alito questioned whether prosecuting former presidents would harm the country's governance. Trump's lawyers argued that former presidents should have absolute immunity for official acts they made during their tenure as president. They said if they didn't, then prosecuting former presidents would become routine and would undermine future presidents from being able to execute difficult decisions without worrying about future legal repercussions. After all, our country's presidents are commonly put in difficult positions wherein the right thing to do would be considered illegal if performed by any other citizen outside of the executive office.

While speaking to Michael Dreeban, an attorney for special counsel Jack Smith's team who are persecuting Trump in two other cases, the Bush-appointed justice (Samuel Alito) asked him this. “I’m sure you would agree with me that a stable, democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully, if that candidate is the incumbent?” “Of course,” replied Dreeban. Alito further posited this, “if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election, knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement, but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?” Dreeban replied that he believes there are “lawful mechanisms to contest the results in an election and outside the record” but claimed that President Trump and others “filed dozens of electoral challenges and my understanding is they lost all but one” in the courts following the 2020 election. He continued, “There was an appropriate way to challenge things through the courts with evidence, if you lose, if you accept the results, that has been the nation’s experience. I think the court is well familiar with that.”

Alito rebutted those assertions on whether there are enough legal safeguards to handle prosecutors acting politically. Dreeban and Jack Smith's team have said that prosecutors must go to grand juries for securing indictments as a check against prosecutions that are politically motivated. The justice responded by saying, "prosecutors could convince a jury to indict a ham sandwich."

Trump's lawyers also argued that their client was merely performing his duties as president while looking to uncover voting fraud during the 2020 election.

This week in New York, the former President, in reference to the Supreme Court case, told reporters the following. “If you don’t have immunity, you’re not going to do anything. You’re going to become a ceremonial president, you’re not going to be taking any of the risks, both good and bad.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, along with at least four other justices didn't seem to support the claim that absolute immunity would stop Trump from being prosecuted on charges of supposedly conspiring to overturn his loss in the 2020 election. Roberts was also with several of the other justices who indicated that the case might need to go back to the lower courts previous to the start date of any trial.

Roberts also showed his dismay with the reasoning brought by the Washington appeals court who gave the ruling against President Trump. During the hearing, the chief justice said this. “You know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment and reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases.”

So, it appears to me that it's likely they will uphold limited presidential immunity, not absolute immunity. As such there's a good chance that it will go back to the lower courts to determine if he was actually performing his official duties while he was questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election results. If it's determined that he was, then immunity would apply, if not then it won't.

Oh, and by the way, there's something I forgot to mention. In the framer's wisdom they installed an important mechanism should the POTUS (President of the United States) engage in severely unlawful, egregious acts; Impeachment, - Duh! (I can't believe I forgot that and it's so important that I had to change the title of this post from, SCOTUS Hearing on Presidential Immunity.) Under impeachment it would require a 2/3rds majority vote in the senate to convict the President or one of his office holders. So, in deference to a famous Johnnie Cochran line, "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit;" although with the opposite intention: "If nefarious breach, you must impeach."

[elegantzombielite]

"The theory of democratic government is not that the will of the people is always right, but rather that normal human beings of average intelligence will, if given a chance, learn the right and best course by bitter experience."

W.E.B. Du Bois, educator, civil rights activist, and writer (23rd February 1868-1963)